Sunday, July 22, 2007

Investors be Aware: Credit-rating Companies May not Have Credit

The following article come from here. Hope investors don't ignore this news.

(Fortune Magazine) -- While Bear Stearns is the most recent financial institution to find itself caught up in the subprime-mortgage quagmire, the three credit-rating agencies - Standard & Poor's, Moody's (Charts), and Fitch - may be the next ones to see their good names dragged through the mud.

The reason? Ohio attorney general Marc Dann is building a case against them based on the role he believes their ratings played in the marketing of risky mortgage-related securities.

"The ratings agencies cashed a check every time one of these subprime pools was created and an offering was made," Dann told Fortune, referring to the way the bond issuers paid to get their asset-backed securities (ABSs) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) rated by the agencies. These ratings run from AAA for debt with the lowest risk of default all the way down to noninvestment- grade bonds, which many pension funds are prohibited from purchasing in their charters. "[The agencies] continued to rate these things AAA . [So they are] among the people who aided and abetted this continuing fraud," adds Dann.

Ohio has the third-largest group of public pensions in the United States, and they've got exposure: The Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund has nearly 7 percent of its portfolio in mortgage- and asset-backed obligations.

Moody's says that Dann's accusations are nonsense. "We perform a very significant but extremely limited role in the credit markets. We issue reasoned, forward-looking opinions about credit risk," says Fran Laserson, vice president of corporate communications at Moody's. "Our opinions are objective and not tied to any recommendations to buy and sell." She further points out that while some securities have lost significant value, none have actually defaulted. (S&P and Fitch declined to comment.)

Dann and a growing legion of critics contend that the agencies dropped the ball by issuing investment-grade ratings on securities backed by subprime mortgages they should have known were shaky. To his mind, the seemingly cozy relationship between ratings agencies and investment banks like Bear Stearns only heightens the appearance of impropriety. In addition to receiving fees from bond issuers that want ratings, S&P, Moody's, and Fitch do not vet data provided by these customers - information the agencies use to make their credit assessments. It's a bit like a take-home final. Or as Moody's puts it in its own code of conduct, "Moody's has no obligation to perform, and does not perform, due diligence." The other two agencies have similar provisions.

Moody's and its cohorts might have some wiggle room. "The agencies are on fairly strong ground that their ratings are just opinions, but that doesn't absolve them from liability risk," says Steve Thel, a securities law professor at Fordham University.

Dann contends also that the ratings are used as benchmarks by institutional investors. He is not alone in this assessment. According to experts in structured finance valuations, the ratings agencies are the central drivers, particularly in the riskier areas of asset-backed securities markets. The pool of buyers would be much smaller without a rating because pension and mutual funds hold only investment-grade bonds, says Christopher Whalen, who sold asset-backed securities at Bear Stearns and is now a principal at Institutional Risk Analytics, which provides tools to credit officers to assess bonds.

"The rating drives everything," adds Sylvain Raynes, a former Moody's analyst and currently a principal at R&R Consulting, a firm that examines these securities.

Others point out that CDOs are too complex for even sophisticated investors to parse, so the ratings take on great importance. "It is unreasonable to think that people could do the quantum math to figure out the ultimate aggregate default rate on a CDO. So, yes, there is a greater expectation that the gatekeepers will scrutinize the underlying credit," says Doug Cifu, a partner who specializes in private equity and finance at Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison.

Regardless of whether a lawsuit materializes, the ratings agencies already seem to be policing themselves. Of the pool of securities created from 2006 subprime mortgages, Moody's has downgraded 19 percent of the issues they've rated and put 30 percent on a watch list. Sadly for Wall Street, if the ratings agencies feel the need to downgrade even more, it will certainly constrict the cheap debt that has fueled the bull market.

Or as Whalen puts it, "The Street dragged everyone into increasingly bizarre and illiquid instruments, and there was huge profitability there, but what it did was buy itself a lot of trouble."

Thursday, July 19, 2007

US Media Ignored New report on Chinese Tires

FTS who impoted tires from China filed a supplenmtal report on 07/03/2007 to NHTSA.The report is on the top place of first page on NHTSA website.

Two important points are new to many westerners because their free media intentionally ignored:1. The tires addressed by the report meet or exceed FMVSS 119.2. The van involved in the accident in Philadelphia, Pa had wrong tires. It had three China-made tires sized 245/75R16 and one Michelin tire sized 225175R16. A review of the tire guide indicates that the Michelin tire was the correct size for that vehicle while the China-made tires were not.

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Joel Goebel relives: f.u.c.k.u.Germany

The following is a response to Chinese by a German comany that put "f.u.c.k.u.china" words on its logo. You could understand that why Joel Goebel was a German. Germans are really propaganda genius. I would take it for granted that Germans welcome all of us say "f.u.c.k.u.Germany" since stands for “the fascinating & urban collection: kiss you Germany”.

Dear Sirs,

Here some explanation concerning a logo we used for a special and limited T-shirt edition produced last season.

On this specific T-shirt collection we had printed the letters f.u.c.k.u.china.

The PHILIPP PLEIN Int. AG company would like to explain what lies behind this abbreviation and give the following statement:

We would like to specify that we never intended to hurt or offend the citizens of China .

On the contrary, with this collection we wanted to thank China because it gives us the possibility to produce some articles of our collection on a competitive price basis.

In addition, the man craft we found in China is very precise and leads to a good quality of the clothes.

This is a great satisfaction for us and for our end customers.

We are a young and dynamic company and this is why we intituled this limited T-shirt edition “fascinating and urban” collection and “kiss” is a way to thank the Chinese savoir-faire.

Since we have been pointed out that the message is not clear and leads to controversy, these T-shirts - that were already limited to start with (max. 100 T-shirts have been produced) - have been retired from the market.

Once again, we are sincerely sorry if the abbreviation of the logo has been misinterpreted. We never wanted to offend anyone.

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

What US Media's Report on Chinese Products can Prove?

Black pepper with salmonella from India. Crabmeat from Mexico that is too filthy to eat. Candy from Denmark that is mislabeled.

At a time when Chinese imports are under fire for being contaminated or defective, federal records suggest that China is not the only country that has problems with its exports.

In fact, federal inspectors have stopped more food shipments from India and Mexico in the last year than they have from China, an analysis of data maintained by the Food and Drug Administration shows.

China has had much-publicized problems with contaminated seafood — including a temporary ban late last month on imports of five species of farm-raised seafood from China — but federal inspectors refused produce from the Dominican Republic and candy from Denmark more often.

For instance, produce from the Dominican Republic was stopped 817 times last year, usually for containing traces of illegal pesticides. Candy from Denmark was impounded 520 times.

By comparison, Chinese seafood was stopped at the border 391 times during the last year.

But the question is that why China is singled out by US government and its propaganda machines? The bombing by US media make everyone have a strong impression that China is the only place that low-quality products originate. The gust of US media on Chinese products in recent month only proves some views:1. US is not a media free country. The voice of the media in US is controlled by some interest or political group or even government.2. US media's reports do not reflect the fact of this world. They are often misleading.If you understand the above two abvious points, you can understand why Americans are so stupid about what is going on on this world.

Are China's products really so dangerous? Other than the above report from NYT, another article appeared on ActionNews about the seafood from China. The director of the Mississippi Poison Control Center says Chinese catfish tainted with outlawed antibiotics pose no threat to those who eat it. A medical toxicologist who works as an emergency room physician at the University of Mississippi Medical Center, says a person would have to eat 220,000 pounds of the fish to get a full adult dose of the antibiotic. Do any American eat 220,000 pounds of fish in their life? It is impossible. The official claimed that the seafood from China is safe and he himself feed his family with the products from China.

It is for sure there are some low-quality products are from China. But low-quality products are from any conrner of this world. US is not problem-free. That why I said the company is stupid that plans to lable its products "China-free"?China supplies 70-80% of the toys in this world. Do the 80% of the toy recalls in US regard China products?

Some low-quality products from China can not blame China alone. Greedy American companies should take a lot of the responsiblities.

Many people know the outsourcing. Outsourcing does not only happens in IT industry, but also in manufacturing. Huge a lot of products from China are actually designed by US companies. They give the design and provide the material requirement or even provide materials.

Greedy American companies also push the product price to unreasonable low when they buy products from China. Every one know that you get what you pay. The unreasonable price can only force producers to make low quality products. I am pretty sure that many products in those supper-low price stores are pro-problems no matter they are made in China or not. We take wal-mart as an example: wal-mart pays Chinese companies US$20 billion each year and Chinese products account for 80% of its sales of more than US$300 billion. Simple calculation will tell you that Wal-mart makes $12 for every dollar it pays to China. Do you see the problem?

China is a country that can supply products from low-end textile or even some substandard to high-end electronics or even parts for commercial planes. But one thing is for sure that China can produce the same products at same quality at much lower cost. "China-free" does not mean "problem-free", but it surely means one thing: Unreasonably expensive.